<html><head></head><body lang="en-US" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); line-height: initial;"> <p style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, serif; font-size: 16px;">RSM would ask what kind of mesorah is there to say ANY of tefillah (that isn't explicitly quoting Chazal, eg much of qorbanos) in leshon chazal?</p><div style="font-size: 16px;"><pre style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, serif;"><em>Tir'u baTov</em>!
-Micha"
</pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">To me it's a silly question</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">Because we do not have anything in Hazal's own handwriting. </span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">We have some guidelines and rules and we now have a source for how the language ideally should be, and that any deviation is thereby suspect as a corrruption</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">See the Beiur Hagra on using 2 matzos at the seder. The Gra - in line with Rif and Rambam takes a fanudamentalist read of Shas and use 2. The Rosh Tosafos et al, take a lomudhser read and presume lechem mishnah applies to Yamim Tovim.</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">The B"Y rejects his own Beth Din and paskens like Tosafos and Rosh over Rif/Rambam because that is the prevailing minhog. </span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">WADR to RSM, he is apparently making one dogmatic presumption over another, namely that old manuscripts are superior to Grammatical restorations.</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">The GRA went with the presumptions of the Talmudic Norm. The B"Y followed the Rishonic norm. The GRA restored the Talmuidc norm based upon a perception of deviation from the preferred norm - namely Talmudic</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">So the Grammarians did much the some. Presuming the dialect of Anshie Knesses hagdolah etc. They preferred a Mikra norm over a Mishnah Norm. I now gave a source as to how they may justify that thinking in a Halachic way. The fact is it was done without a lot of protest or that it was aways mistabbeir might be further justifications</span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;">EG the facts show that Hirsch's siddur followe heidenheim without seeing him as a Reformer tend to give his methods his tacit approvals. </span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></pre><pre><span style="line-height: initial;"><br></span></pre><pre><br></pre></div></body></html>